Page 1 of 2

Erroneous Torque Nomenclature?

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:34 am
by BigWillieStyle
As a relative newcomer to tool and die do machinists resent Isaac Newton or am I missing something?

What's wrong with (N·m) or (ft·lbf)?

This alternative unit of measurement lifestyle (oz·in) , (lb·in), etc... In my opinion, it reads like a individual stating their age in weeks.

Nonetheless is there a good explanation, or is it bad judgement in regards to a individual interpretation of clever?

Re: Erroneous Torque Nomenclature?

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:03 am
by frijoli
BigWillieStyle wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:34 am
As a relative newcomer to tool and die do machinists resent Isaac Newton or am I missing something?

What's wrong with (N·m) or (ft·lbf)?

This alternative unit of measurement lifestyle (oz·in) , (lb·in), etc... In my opinion, it reads like a individual stating their age in weeks.

Nonetheless is there a good explanation, or is it bad judgement in regards to a individual interpretation of clever?
Ever torqued something or measure very small amount accurately? How many decades old is a newborn baby? Just depends on how many decimals you like.
What do you mean by erroneous?

Re: Erroneous Torque Nomenclature?

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:20 am
by diycncscott
inch/pounds, oz/inches etc.. provide a much finer grained unit of measurement making it a more appropriate unit of measure for this purpose.

Why don't they use tons instead of grains as a unit of measure for bullets?

Re: Erroneous Torque Nomenclature?

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:26 am
by Black Forest
frijoli wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:03 am
BigWillieStyle wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:34 am

What do you mean by erroneous?
I think he meant to write erogenous! :D

Re: Erroneous Torque Nomenclature?

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:41 am
by tblough
We sometimes measure torques in oz-in for the same reason we measure parts in inches. Machining a part to 2" is much easier to measure than machining it to 0.16667 feet.

Re: Erroneous Torque Nomenclature?

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:24 pm
by RayL
If you're buying sugar at the supermarket, would you rather buy a 5 pound bag, or a 0.00226796 metric ton bag? The answer to that question is exactly the same as the answer to your question.

Regards,
Ray L.

Re: Erroneous Torque Nomenclature?

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:45 pm
by frijoli
RayL wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:24 pm
If you're buying sugar at the supermarket, would you rather buy a 5 pound bag, or a 0.00226796 metric ton bag? The answer to that question is exactly the same as the answer to your question.

Regards,
Ray L.
That's my favorite.

Re: Erroneous Torque Nomenclature?

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:48 pm
by BigWillieStyle
Okay, erroneous may not have been the best or even well thought out choice.

Image

No, I've never torqued anything to a very small amount.

What things do you need to apply units of force to in very small amounts? It appears due to the density of most workpieces the application of small units of force would be equivalent to throwing a baseball at the Humbolthain Flak Tower. Therefore as a unit of force measurement in how could it be critically material in application with regard to ferrous and nonferrous metals, any examples?

Bullets and grains, I don't really know much about guns.

I'm curious.

Re: Erroneous Torque Nomenclature?

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:46 pm
by frijoli
BigWillieStyle wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:48 pm
Okay, erroneous may not have been the best or even well thought out choice.

Image

No, I've never torqued anything to a very small amount.

What things do you need to apply units of force to in very small amounts? It appears due to the density of most workpieces the application of small units of force would be equivalent to throwing a baseball at the Humbolthain Flak Tower. Therefore as a unit of force measurement in how could it be critically material in application with regard to ferrous and nonferrous metals, any examples?

Bullets and grains, I don't really know much about guns.

I'm curious.
I could give you many examples. However, I must ask why you are asking on this site?

Clay

Re: Erroneous Torque Nomenclature?

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:21 am
by Dave_C
Not sure this will help but here goes:

Oz in is just a ratio to lb in.


Let's say you have [1600 oz in] as the amount of torque. To get [lb in] you just divide by 16 as there are 16 oz in a lb. Now if you want [foot lb] you are changing the distance of measurement and not the division of weight. So divide by the distance which is 12 inches.

Example:

1600 divided by 16 = 100 OZ in [converted to lb inches].
100 divided by 12= 8.33333 foot lbs {lb in converted to lb feet}.

And you could convert foot lbs to newton meters if you like.

As far as the Grains thing goes, it is a smaller division of an ounce. There are 437.5 grains in an ounce. So weighing powder by the ounce is not a fine enough division of weight. And just in cased you would like to know, that makes 7,000 grains per lb.

Dave C.